A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judge blasted the Biden administration, insinuating the administration and its “frenemies” colluded to postpone a lawsuit over asylum claim restrictions until such time that it is politically beneficial.
The lawsuit revolves around the Biden administration’s Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule that would have limited the number of asylum claims approved for migrants. Under this rule, claims would have been denied if the migrants entered the country unlawfully or did not attempt to claim asylum in the countries they passed through while traveling to the U.S., as reported by Fox News.
This rule was then blocked due to a lawsuit filed by East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, an activist organization that “provides legal services, community organizing, and transformative education to support low-income immigrants and people fleeing violence and persecution.”
Both sides recently filed an appeal to request a postponement of the trial shortly after the Ninth Circuit Panel heard oral arguments. The two sides requested the postponement until after a settlement could be discussed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel approved the suspension, but Judge Lawrence VanDyke dissented, presenting criticism and concerns about the administration’s decision to move toward a settlement.
“For months, the rule was so important that ‘any interruption’ in its implementation, even for a short period of time, would incapacitate the executive’s border response. This panel made decisions based on those representations. Now, the government implies the rule isn’t so important after all. Indeed, the government is now ‘engaged in discussions’ that could result in the rule going away. What?” said VanDyke, per Fox News.
VanDyke rebuked the Biden Administration for working with East Bay Sanctuary Covenant on a settlement “out of the blue,” noting that the panel was prepared to present a decision. The judge also said that previous decisions made by the panel were based on the administration’s claim that any suspension of the rule “would incapacitate the executive’s border response.”
“Up until now, we have been repeatedly assured that the rule is critical to the security of the border. But now, astoundingly, the government seeks to abandon its defense of the rule — or at least put that defense on ice until a more politically convenient time,” he said. “Whatever the parties’ real motivations are for seeking to stay this case, they haven’t provided us with a legally sufficient basis for their sudden change of course.”
VanDyke continued to say that the two sides seem to be colluding together in an attempt to “postpone resolution of this case until a more politically palatable time.”
“At the very least it looks like the administration and its frenemies on the other side of this case are colluding to avoid playing their politically fraught game during an election year.”
VanDyke offered multiple theories about why the Biden administration may have shifted their priorities in this case, with one thought being that they may “simply be trying to avoid another immigration loss in court, the optics of which could be particularly devastating during the current immigration crisis.”
“Americans of all political persuasions are increasingly focused on — and worried about — the situation on our southern border. 1 Placing these proceedings in abeyance avoids the possibility of a loss before the Ninth Circuit that could potentially exacerbate the issues at the border in the months leading up to the election — a loss made even more damaging given that it would be meted out by a panel comprised primarily of Democratic appointees, no less.”
It is still unknown when the two sides will finish the settlement discussions, though VanDyke suggested that “sometime after November would fit their ‘settlement negotiations’ needs nicely.
